In this thread was once a small discussion regarding reflexive [<äp> vs sno]. I didn't forgot that topic of that thread and I thought about it. Probably some of these examples make more than less sense, but I think they are interesting and whort a discussion.I make this as its own topic not to derail the old thread.

Because it would make ‹äp› redundant altogether, don’t you think Otherwise, our walk-around of 3, 4 years ago with *oel tse’a oeti “I see me” would be grammatical—which it is not

Why it is not grammatical? It could be stylistically incorrect or unnatural, but grammatically it would be correct. There are transitive verb, its subject and object. Oe (and sno too) has forms oel and oet, so grammatically there is no problems

I somehow agree with Kemaweyan. Why "Oel tse'a ngat" is grammatically not a problem but "Oel tse'a oet"?

[1]Oel tse'a ngati.EN: I see you.DE: Ich sehe dich.

[2]Oel tse'a oeti.EN: I see me.DE: Ich sehe mich.

[3]Oe tsäpe'aEN: I see myself.DE: Ich sehe mich selbst.

In this case of "I see me" the logic would say that if "I see me", I see myself. Of course, it sounds totally weird in Na'vi ears or it is uncommon. In Na'vi one would prefer the last example [3] with <äp>. The second case [2] would make more sense as "Oel tse'a oet unilmì." "I see me in a dream", maybe.But, what about this:

While "oel tse’a oet" or "pol tse’a snot" type sentences are not utterly bad (at least from technical point of view), they are not good.They represent an abuse of a grammatical construction for the purpose it wasn't created for.

Maybe it's better to look into the past, how and why these constructions have been introduced into language:

‹äp› infix is here from the very beginning, and it's purpose is to apply an action back to the subject (the "doer" of that action). This means that subject and object of some verb are no more independent persons/things, but they merge into single one. For example "Oe tsäpe’a" - I see myself.

Historically, ‹äp› was used only with transitive verbs, because only those have subject and object ("direct object").However, to this moment we were presented with two examples of intransitive verb taking ‹äp›: "win säpi" - "to hurry" and "ioi säpi" - "to adorn oneself".

sno pronoun was introduced in autumn 2010, for a very specific reason.Before "sno", we don't have any possibility to distinguish between 3th person pronoun "po" and some other person in the same sentence.So the pronoun "sno" was created to resolve that ambiguity:

"Pol peyä tstalti litx sleyku" - He sharpens his knife. (two people involved - one person sharpens the knife of the second person)"Pol sneyä tstalti litx sleyku" - He sharpens his own knife.

As you see, ma Tìtstewan, ‹äp› and sno fit into different situations and shouldn't be deliberately replaced with each other.Also, placing single one person/thing simultaneously to the roles of the subject and the object of the same verb (using -l and -t infixes), does not makes any sense - because we have ‹äp› infix just for this purpose.

Historically, ‹äp› was used only with transitive verbs, because only those have subject and object ("direct object").However, to this moment we were presented with two examples of intransitive verb taking ‹äp›: "win säpi" - "to hurry" and "ioi säpi" - "to adorn oneself".

I would treat si verbs as a special category here. Because we have the weird situation that some of the si verbs — while they are grammatically intransitive — denote stative functions, some of them are semantically transitive. So, the ones you mentioned are the weird ones out but we also have tstu/piak säpi, lew säpi

Well, I've warned that some of these examples are totally weird and wrong, but all this is very interesting and I posted it for future questions on that. There also shown the weirdness of some si-verbs*; those with <äp> infix.

So, constructions like "oel tse'a oet. / Po tse'a snot." sounds weird in Na'vi ears (to be honest, some of them sounds also in my ears weird). There should be used <äp> only: Oe tsäpe'a. / Po tsäpe'a.

Well. Maybe it is not applicable in Na'vi, but there are both forms in Russian and we can choose any of them. I'm just talking about the logics of a language which has the same constructions (as sno and -äp-). So I don't see any reasons why po yawne lu snor is correct, but pol tse'a snot is incorrect. Sno does not change its own meaning, it still means the same person - who makes an action. Also it a pronoun and I don't see any reasons to think that it's forbidden to add -ti to sno. Moreover I think snol would be correct too:

-Pesul tspolang poti?-Snol.-Who killed him?-(He did it) himself.

I could accept only a rule from Pawl. If he says that it is incorrect, I accept it just as a feature of Na'vi. But it would be weird for me.

***

Also I think that there are three types of verbs in Na'vi: intransitive, transitive and "pseudo-transitive". I mean the verbs like pamrel si, piak si, tstu si etc. Grammatically they are intransitive (could not be used with -l/-ti), but by they mean actions which have direct objects. And I don't mean a translation, I mean exactly the meaning of those actions. And actually there could be some verbs in the dictionary which we do not their transitivity for sure

I like the idea of "pseudo-transitive"! I guess that lew/win/tstu/piak säpi are "really pseudo-transitive" because some of them have a non-<äp>-version like "law si". But I think, this would be a great question for K. Pawl, if some other si-verb could have <äp> too. Candidates could be those words where reflexives make sense, like "I sing myself" (Oe way säpi).

Candidates could be those words where reflexives make sense, like "I sing myself" (Oe way säpi).

Do you mean the emphatic “You thought somebody else sings but it is me who sings. I sing myself.” (Ich selbst singe/Ich singe selbst.) or “I sing to myself” ? Those are two different things and I think the former was included in a proposal a couple of months back from the LEP to K. Pawl. We’ll have to wait and see for an answer.

When I see any "si-verb" closer than half of the screen to the word "transitive", the skin on my back turns into gooseflesh.They (some si-verbs) may look transitive when looked at from the perspective of english or /insert favorite Earth language here/ language, but in Na’vi they are purely intransitive.Personally, I am very uncomfortable with those weird s‹äp›i verbs, because they are just weird exceptions, out of the logic.

Well. Maybe it is not applicable in Na'vi, but there are both forms in Russian and we can choose any of them. I'm just talking about the logics of a language which has the same constructions (as sno and -äp-). So I don't see any reasons why po yawne lu snor is correct, but pol tse'a snot is incorrect. Sno does not change its own meaning, it still means the same person - who makes an action. Also it a pronoun and I don't see any reasons to think that it's forbidden to add -ti to sno. Moreover I think snol would be correct too:-Pesul tspolang poti?-Snol.-Who killed him?-(He did it) himself.I could accept only a rule from Pawl. If he says that it is incorrect, I accept it just as a feature of Na'vi. But it would be weird for me.

I see your point and I really hope that examples you mentioned should be not only grammatically correct, but confirmed by Pawl. However I do understand that if we have two mechanisms to achieve the same result, while first one is specifically build to do that, and second one does that by accident, I should prefer the first one.

Where it really gets interesting is the question why do we have a construct like tìsraw seyki?

If the “pseudo-transitive” si-verbs ‘solve’ the problem via the dative form why does a verb like tìsraw si needs the ‹eyk› to make it transitive proper?

It's easy: tìsraw si is completely intransitive verb. It means that something is painful. And if you want to say "make something painful", just use -eyk-. This is exactly what I meant: there are three types of verbs, but this one is not pseudo-transitive. Otherwise we know that piak si means "open (something)", not "to be opened", so it's pseudo-transitive. I think the main problem it that there is no difference between transitive and intransitive translations in English. The verb "open" could mean both forms: transitive and intransitive, and then we can't understand transitivity by translation.

Candidates could be those words where reflexives make sense, like "I sing myself" (Oe way säpi).

Do you mean the emphatic “You thought somebody else sings but it is me who sings. I sing myself.” (Ich selbst singe/Ich singe selbst.) or “I sing to myself” ? Those are two different things and I think the former was included in a proposal a couple of months back from the LEP to K. Pawl. We’ll have to wait and see for an answer.

I can't find any official example of way si X-ruWe have rol (unknown transitivity), and if we can say "Oe rol tìrolur" (yes I know it could be also "Oel rol tìrolit"), why not Oe way si tìrolur"? (Well, another open question for Pawl)

I can't find any official example of way si X-ruWe have rol (unknown transitivity), and if we can say "Oe rol tìrolur" (yes I know it could be also "Oel rol tìrolit"), why not Oe way si tìrolur"? (Well, another open question for Pawl)

I think dative would mean here a person to whom you sing a song. Sa'nok rol evengur; Na'vi way si Eywar. It seems natural for me. If so, then way si tìrolur would be wrong and way säpi would not make any sense. Also I guess that rol is transitive, but of course I remember nume.

LearnNavi is not affiliated with the official Avatar website,
James Cameron, LightStorm Entertainment or The Walt Disney Company.
All trademarks and servicemarks are the properties of their respective owners.Images in the LearnNavi.org Forums and Gallery may not be used without permission.

LearnNavi Affiliates:

LearnNavi is the community to learn Na'vi, the Avatar Language"A place where real friendships are made." -Paul Frommer